rEvolutionist wrote:God your arguments get worse and worse over time.
The wedding photographer analogy is retarded as the wedding photographer has to actually attend and be personally affected by the act. A cake maker just has to make a fucking cake and that's the end of it.
To you perhaps. Not to him, and it's his religious beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment. One of the principle rules of law here is that the Supreme Court and all inferior courts cannot render judgement on the appropriateness or reason of a person's religious convictions, they can only examine the depth and dedication to those professed beliefs. If the court determines that the belief is validly and "deeply" held, the court has no option but to protect that person's exercise of those beliefs, within some general limits.
No, they ordered something NOT on the services list: a cake for a homosexual wedding.
They don't make gay wedding cakes, and I suspect don't make anti-Semetic or anti-Christian wedding cakes either.No, they ordered a wedding cake. Do these bigoted wankstains make wedding cakes or not? If so, then that is part of their services list.
I'll tell you why. It's because the selfish pricks were homosexual bigots
You don't think homosexuals can be bigoted pricks? You don't know many homosexuals I gather.You do understand that words have definitions, right??
They are using an unconstitutional law
Um, rEv, that's exactly what's going on right now, which is what I've been telling you for some time.Um, how do you know it is unconstitutional? Has it been tested by constitutional courts??
militant homosexual activism
They walked out and filed a ruinous lawsuit against him, the bigoted fuckers. They could have just said "Oh well, I guess we need to look for another baker" and left him alone. But no, they were militant homosexual bigots who decided to make an "example" of him. Well, I hope they get their example shoved right up their asses by the Supreme Court.You're an idiot. They asked for a cake, got refused, and walked out. How the fuck is that "militant"?? It would be militant if they did what I recommend they should have done - that is, smash the shit out of his shop.
People have a right to despise homosexuality just as you have a right to despise Catholics and it's utterly morally wrong to violate the rights of individuals who hold religious beliefs that require them to remain strictly separate from such activities by forcing them to participate in activities that can be even remotely seen to be approving or supportive of those acts.
The unconstitutional law that orders him to bake them a cake says so. That's rather the point.Where did anyone say the bigots couldn't despise homosexuals?? Go on, point it out. You really are failing shockingly at constructing cogent arguments lately.
Tolerance is not necessarily acceptance, it is just tolerance, and segregating oneself from people one cannot accept for any reason, but particularly for religious reasons, is a basic civil right. You do NOT have a civil right to force someone else against their will, no matter what anybody says, when it comes to conscripting their intellectual or artistic talents or labor on your behalf. Any law which purports to do so is immutably unconstitutional.
Yup.Yeah, and Obama is a Marxist.
We don't know because they left as soon as he told them he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.I wrote:Was there anything that was going to label the cake as being gay??
No, they clearly asked for a cake for "their" wedding, implying that they were gay. A reasonable inference to that effect on the part of the baker prompted him to advise them that he doesn't bake cakes for gay weddings for religious reasons. They could have responded "Oh, we're not gay, by "our" wedding we meant our double heterosexual wedding." But they didn't. They got up and walked out without a word and sued because they were in fact a gay couple getting married who tried to force the baker to participate in that religiously-objectionable ceremony, which he rightfully refused to do.That's why you are a dolt, as I was trying to explain. You brought forth some idiotic analogy with jews having to bake a "nazi cake". These wankers weren't asked to bake a "gay cake". They were asked to bake a fucking cake like they say they do in there services list. You can't even follow your own idiotic arguments for more than one iteration. FFS, this is why "debating" with you is a total waste of time. You are a perennial goal post shifter and backflipper. You've been doing it since rd.net days.
I would encourage a Holocaust survivor to bake the neo-Nazis IN the cake. That would be perfectly appropriate. But if he doesn't want to bake those fuckers a cake, he doesn't have to and nobody on earth can make him do so. They might imprison him, or kill him, or stick him in an oven, but he can refuse to bake the fucking cake, and should. And I'd be standing right there with him, with my guns, to protect him and vindicate his right to tell the neo-Nazis to go fuck their mothers, if they haven't already.
Because I believe in civil rights, and unlike pussies like you, I'm willing to put my life on the line to defend them.Yes we all know what your vision for law and justice is. Why not campaign for it in a civil way, instead of thinking that every problem or thing you don't like needs to be enforced over the barrel of a gun??
See how easy it is to categorize people into convenient pigeonholes that support your particular bigotry and self interest? Neo-Nazis say the same thing about Jews. Evangelical Christians of some denominations say the same thing about homosexuals, whom they define as sinful perversions of nature destined to burn in hell for eternity and with whom they therefore do not wish to associate, lest their God doom them to perdition for violating his commandments.
Um, rEv, "exclusion" is a fundamental First Amendment right. The right to freedom of association, as the court said, "necessarily includes the freedom not to associate."The difference that you haven't grasped is that I our arguments come from a position of inclusion. Nazi arguments, and these bigoted fuckwits, come from a position of exclusion. There's a fundamental difference that I'm sure you could grasp if you took your hand off your bible and gun for a few minutes.
Just because you think people ought to accept everyone without discrimination doesn't mean that's a rational, much less constitutional stance.
The right to discriminate is firmly ensconced in the US Constitution. Only in the rarest of circumstances is that fundamental right infringed upon, and only for the most compelling of national needs, and only in the most limited and focused manner that actually achieves the lawful effect.
It is not true that "discrimination" is generally forbidden or even looked down upon by society. People discriminate every day in millions of ways, and they have every right to do so. They can discriminate against you because you are ugly, or loud, or smelly, or insensitive, or crude, or stupid, or ignorant, or unsophisticated or quite literally any other reason than the very few class-based criteria authorized by the Supreme Court in order to rectify an egregious and harmful degree of discrimination of long historical standing that was dividing the nation and fostering violence.
Whether homosexual discrimination rises to that necessary level of strict scrutiny review before any law infringing on superior constitutional rights can be held to be a valid legislative exercise of power is the question that will come before the Court eventually, hopefully in this case, for resolution.
Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in the past that homosexual activity can be criminalized, basing it's judgment of legislative prerogative on the basis of what the legislature thinks is best for the nation by way of supporting the traditional elements of the nuclear family.
That changed markedly most recently with the Court decriminalizing homosexual sexual acts by citing privacy concerns, but it's still a matter of contention whether the Court or the Congress will accept the argument that homosexuality is due the sort of civil rights protections that the Civil Rights Act extended to minorities and women.
You see, while being homosexual is certainly an inherent physical characteristic that is (by most accounts) beyond the control of the individual and is based in genetics, what a person actually does by way of manifesting the behaviors of those characteristics is not beyond their control and therefore such behavior is subject to regulation by the government (not that I, as a Libertarian, agree with this. I'm just stating legal fact here) in the best interests of the public. This is why (ostensibly) homosexual acts used to be crimes, why polygamy is still a crime, why bestiality is a crime, why human sacrifice and cannibalism are crimes, etc..
Whether you agree or not, you must acknowledge that the law controls one's actions based on what society considers to be acceptable public or private conduct, and that being homosexual and acting out homosexual desires are two entirely different things, one of which is not subject to regulation while the other most certainly is, just as being a member of a tribe that practices cannibalism as a religious rite in Borneo does not necessarily entitle one to engage in cannibalism in the US.
Whether I agree with the public perceptions of homosexual sexual behavior is not relevant to the issue of whether society is accepting of such behavior, or whether society is obliged to be accepting of such behavior. Personally, I care nothing whatever about what people do consensually in private so long as it does not initiate force or fraud on others. But society is not obliged to feel the same way, and it is free to regulate personal behavior in what it considers to be the best interests of the society, unless and until it impinges unduly on a protected fundamental constitutional right. So far, the right to private homosexual activity has been protected by the Supreme Court insofar as such activities being criminal offenses, which is a great thing. Whether or not society, at the federal level (Congress) extends that tolerance to the institution of marriage is an unanswered question, although the trend seems to be positive for gay marriage at the moment, which is something I personally approve of.
The fact is that society can regulate individual sexual behavior and has been doing so for millennia, so it's anything but certain that homosexual sexual activity (or heterosexual out of m,arriage sexual activity for that matter) is going to become or remain protected. It will, in my opinion, always be subject to some extent to the attitudes and tolerance of the community at large, as we see in Muslim countries for example, where the intolerance is absolute.
In this specific case, the question involved is how far the recognized rights of privacy associated with homosexual (or heterosexual) activities extend when those activities conflict with the religious practices and beliefs of other individuals. At some point the religious rights take precedence simply because they are fundamental enumerated rights and the barrier to infringing on them is very, very high. Where that line lies is at the heart of this case.
Rights flow forth from the law. Or is this another one of your "natural" law idiocies?It's their right to be bigoted arsewipes, just as it's the right of the bigoted arsewipes who set him up by demanding he bake them a cake.
I wish they had. They would be put in jail for that. Instead, the innocent person whose rights are being violated is the one being persecuted by an unjust and unconstitutional law and a bunch of selfish prick homosexual arsewipe bigots.
It depends on which side of the issue you stand. In the eyes of the baker, and many Christians, it is Christians who are being persecuted for obeying their religious beliefs. Their claim is just as valid as the gay couple's is, and legally speaking his claim is much stronger because his religious rights are factually more carefully and comprehensively protected than are the cake-buying rights of the gay couple.
If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?
